It’s always a good rule of thumb not to write - at least for public consumption - unless you have something worthwhile to say. That explains why some of us allow the "McCain-Clinton Bitch Controversy" and President Bush’s "War on Airline Delays" to pass by. Anyone who deems these important issues in the critical climate in which we, as a nation and a people, exist can do all the commentary necessary on these "news items". In my opinion, this sort of background noise does nothing more than distract from real problems and important issues.

And, my friends, there is trouble right here. I say, trouble right here in American. We are in the midst of war in two foreign countries (Afghanistan, Iraq) and one within our own nation ("War on Terror"). We have two land borders with two nations (Canada, Mexico) who are not all that inclined (since they face no similar threats) to help us insure our security. We have an immense importation infrastructure that leaves us open to assault by sea. We have a public education system that fails to teach even the most rudimentary steps in logical thought or idea assessment. We have a national government that has crept into every aspect of our lives and now, for all practical purposes, appears irremediable. A governmental juggernaut that, according to at least one Democratic candidate, is "a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged, that is corrupt." If a professional politician can recognize that self-evident truth, why is the public palpably complacent?

So, I ask rhetorically, what is the average American to do? Clearly, there are many options and I will list them in descending order from most popular to least likely:

• One may simply throw hands in the air, turn on the favorite cable station and occupy (vacate?) one’s minds and thoughts with endless and corrupting tripe.
• One may decide that the only way to solve the problems is to turn over even more of our money and encourage further government expansion in vain attempts to solve problems (poverty, illegal immigration, growing trade deficits, falling value of U.S. currency, psoriasis, ad nauseam) that cannot be solved by governments at all.
• If able, one might elect to buy five acres in rural Montana, build a really big cellar, hoard food and weapons, grow long hair and wait for the end times.
• Or, you may just decide that the time has come to end the madness.

It is this final road - surely, the road less traveled - that this American has chosen to walk down. I am convinced, given the mood and concern (or lack thereof) of those about me, it will be a lonely trek. But, in the immortal words of William Lloyd Garrison: "I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard."

I am convinced that the election scheduled for 2008 when we will elect our next administration, will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of this nation and its people. There has probably not been a more critical nexus of problems and challenges in history than this first decade of the 21^st century excepting, perhaps, the decade of 1860-1870. From that decade, we emerged a much more inclusive country if not a perfect one. In this crucial decade, we face obstacles that will demand innovation, clear thinking and a commitment to do what is best for the people of the United States.

Critical problems abound:

• What are we to do about our legacy of being founded by immigrants when the contemporary immigration situation has become untenable? Should we make immigration easier for those who "bring something to the table" (in the form of job skills or education) and make enforcement a priority to exclude those seeking to merely get their ticket punched for the Great American Gravy Train or, worse, to do damage to the United States as an expression of terrorism? How, exactly, does one do that? This is a question with no easy answers.
• What do we do to stem the tide of petroleum dependence in this country? Is it time to have tax incentives for those who purchase energy-efficient automobiles and disincentives for those soccer-moms and white-collar men who want (to be distinguished from those who truly need the vehicles for work) to drive Hummers, V-8 pickup trucks and SUVs? Should those who opt to buy hybrids or electric vehicles be totally exempt from Federal and state sales taxes on these vehicles? Should fees for car tags be assessed not based on the value of the automobile but on its gas mileage? If we elect to establish a form of "value-added tax" for energy waste, let us use these revenues for development of energy-efficient modes of transportation and prohibit them from being hijacked for pet government projects that do nothing to alleviate the problem at hand.
• Is the fact that there are, by some estimates, nearly 50 million citizens who do not have health insurance a situation that is a necessary and sufficient condition for government intervention? While this number appears, at first blush, to be alarming, it obviously counts many who are voluntarily or temporarily uninsured. The estimates include those who are wealthy enough to "pay as they go" and many young people who are between jobs and vulnerable but statistically unlikely to face a medical catastrophe. That said, few can deny it is a problem. The question is - and it is one that, for some, answers itself: Can government solve a market problem better than business and a free market? And, the corollary: Has government ever been able to provide better products and services that a free-market system in any industry?
• The public school system in America is broken and is a production line that is producing a "product" that is noncompetitive in the world market. Is the answer to this failed system to simply pour "good money after bad"? Specifically, do we simply need to pay teachers more and build better physical plants in order to instruct our children in what they should know to lead in the world of the future? Is that really an answer or are more complex issues involved? Do we need to introduce market reforms into the monopolistic public education system? Is a government-funded, government-mandated and union-dominated industry likely to be responsive and inventive enough to fix itself? Is it time to privatize education so that parents can have a greater selection of providers for educating their children?
• What of the growing concern for the rise of "classicism" in America? The much-ballyhooed "gap between the rich and the poor" in this nation has been a clarion call for government intervention into solving a problem that has, on a less emotional analysis, been with the human race for millennia. Thus, the question remains: Can government intervention change human nature? Is mankind destined to always have overachievers, achievers and underachievers? How, precisely, will government spending change that cold, hard truth? Is giving those in lower economic strata financial subsidy likely to enhance their motivation to strive for a better life? Or, will the guarantee of a monthly check have the exact opposite effect and remove the incentives to achieve? Is not the sole role of government in our society to simply assure that every citizen is allowed to play the "game" under equal rules? Or, as some would believe, it is the role of government not to merely ensure equal opportunities but, also, equal results? The tired mantra of "giving a hand up and not a hand out" was kitschy in the 1960s and, in light of the deplorable track record of the various "Wars on Poverty," is a monumental fallacy today. Government intervention into the ways that people choose to live their lives - regardless of how well-intentioned it may appear - has never and will never work. History teaches us many lessons. This is one that does not whisper to us; it screams to be heard.
• Private monopolies have been crushed and dismantled by our government since the "trust busting" days of Theodore Roosevelt. Paradoxically, while the government easily recognizes the perils of exclusionary practices in private business, it wholeheartedly embraces them in its own paradigm. Public education, social security and the postal system are three examples of government monopolies. They are also, not coincidently, three examples of why government can never and will never be able to compete with laissez faire capitalism. The Janus-faced (some would say schizophrenic) position of the federal government toward monopolies has led to the usual consequences of government-as-business: inefficiency, bloated bureaucracy and shoddy services. The question to be posed - yet again - in 2008 is: Does government have the potential to provide for these essential services or is it time to examine private alternatives?

If you have not surmised, at this point, where my personal inclinations are on these issues, I have not succeeded as well as I had hoped. In less than 2 years (November 9, 2009), some of us will celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the almost century-old Soviet system of central (read: government) planning and control. As we swim - much like the doomed but determined Pacific salmon - fatalistically against the stream of one of history’s greatest lessons - i.e. governments can never effectively run consumer services - we face one of the greatest crossroads to face this nation. In 2008, the decision is, when stripped of all the acrimony of party politics and personalities, whether or not we care to continue on our current path of European socialism or not.

But, philosophically, the choices that we face go far beyond the importance of a single Presidential contest. It is imperative that, as a people, we begin to examine the most basic of questions: Just how much government can we afford - fiscally and personally. At the present rate of governmental expansion and the plans already endorsed by the leading candidates (with, surely, more grandiose proposals to come) we have reached a critical mass.

If allowed to proceed unimpeded, America will soon join the legions of nations already under the yoke of "democratic socialism" - an oxymoron if ever there was one.